These beautiful examples about convince me that I need this lens; I'm currently using my 70-300 DO with a close-up filter for only semi-acceptable macro work (but hey, it has kept me from lugging around a dedicated macro lens). But before I rush out to buy one, I have a question. As I understand it, a 100mm macro lens, at 1:1, has about a 6 inch working distance to subject. Canon's 180mm macro lens has about 12 inches of working distance and is frequently cited as better for use with skittish bugs, and the like. But the bugs I know are just as skittish at 12 inches as they are at 6 inches! Too, the 180 is heavier, bulkier and substantially more expensive. My 70-300 with close-up lens has a relaxed, 3-foot working distance. Can anyone with experience with or who has researched both the 100 and 180 offer any advice?

@ RPT.Thanks.My settings were f/10, 1/100 shutter, manual focus.I was probably about 7-8 inches away. I tend to just manual focus all the way down to the closest setting and move the camera to get the focus. I only took 2 shots and both came out beautiful.

@ RPT.Thanks.My settings were f/10, 1/100 shutter, manual focus.I was probably about 7-8 inches away. I tend to just manual focus all the way down to the closest setting and move the camera to get the focus. I only took 2 shots and both came out beautiful.

Thanks. I just got my 100L macro. Have just finished doing the AFMA and took a few shots. It is fantastic! Now I need macro rings and a macro rail. Boy this is a never ending money drain .

Oh, I already am AFMA done, I was testing it out taking pics of tiny bouganvilla flowers that were about 8 to 10 mm wide. When I checked the photos, there were these tiny six legged things and there was some cobweb yarn too. So I went back to look and found that they were about 1 to 1.5 mm in size! I'll post them this weekend.